Post-Gazette Editorial – 9/26/06

This page was last updated on September 28, 2006.

Terror-struck / The Iraq war has made things worse, not better; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; September 26, 2006.

As has become a habit of the PG, it published this editorial one day early.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Consensus analysis by 16 U.S. intelligence agencies indicates that due to the Iraq war, America’s risk of suffering another terrorist attack has risen rather than decreased.”

[RWC] What this editorial doesn’t tell us is that one paragraph out of an approximately 40 page documented was cherry picked. While we allegedly know what one paragraph says, we don’t know what the rest of the report says.

It’s sad it had to come to this, but President Bush ordered the Director of National Intelligence to declassify the “Key Judgments of the NIE” to show the cherry picked comments were taken out of context.

I suspect the PG will now push for the entire NIE to be published knowing full well that can’t happen for national security reasons. Since President Bush has already said the entire NIE won’t be declassified, I suspect the PG will claim the Bush administration is hiding something. Unfortunately, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who called for the NIE’s declassification, has already torpedoed this position. During a TV interview, Rep. Harman stated the declassified key judgments “fairly represent” the conclusions of the full NIE. (Note: As noted, I saw/heard Rep. Harman make this comment on TV. So far, though, I haven’t been able to find a transcript on the web so I could provide a link.)

“Information regarding this report, the National Intelligence Estimate, a coordinated product of the director of national intelligence which was completed in April, has become available to the public through the best efforts of The New York Times in spite of the best efforts of the Bush administration to bury it. Why, by the way, was information as important as this withheld from the American public? Could this be Republican electoral tactics?”

[RWC] The first sentence is an outright lie. Even The NY Times didn’t see the NIE. The NY Times published only that very small portion leaked to it via hearsay from an anonymous “American intelligence official.” The entire NIE did not – and will not (hopefully) – “become available to the public” and the PG knows it.

You’ll also note the hypocrisy. If you recall, just five months ago the PG bashed the Bush administration for declassifying a portion of the October 2002 NIE in order to defend itself against the lies spread by Joe Wilson. Now the PG congratulates The NY Times for publishing leaked portions of a classified document.

“Why … was information as important as this withheld from the American public?” Is the PG serious? What doesn’t the PG understand about not giving U.S. intelligence assessments to the enemy?

Finally, remember how bent out of shape the PG was about the non-outing of CIA employee Valerie Wilson because it was “clearly a national security affair?” Here we have a real national security leak and the PG cheers it on. How sad.

“Even more startling, neither the House Intelligence Committee nor the Senate Intelligence Committee was briefed on the global terrorism appraisal contained in the National Intelligence Estimate.”

[RWC] This appears to be at least a distortion. On September 25^th, The NY Times reported Rep. Harman could not discuss the NIE. This tells me Rep. Harman read the NIE. If Rep. Harman had not read the NIE, that’s what the article would have said.

In another article, Fox News reported Rep. Jane Harman was “one of a few lawmakers to have read the classified report.”

“It has been hard to imagine for a long time now that what the report states is not the case, given the sharply rising wave of sophisticated attacks by growing elements in Iraq, as we have pointed out. That country, in the absence of sufficient U.S. forces, has become a virtually unrestricted training ground for terrorists. Given the daily death toll there, it is probably true to say that Iraq, as a breeding ground for terrorism, now is worse than Afghanistan was prior to 9/11. And all that with some 133,000 U.S. troops on the ground.”

[RWC] What’s amazing is that the PG believes the alleged conclusion is newsworthy. After all, Islamofascists use any excuse to recruit. Using the PG’s logic, why not release convicted Islamofascists? After all, doesn’t sending these terrorists to prison enrage their pals?

Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice summed it in an interview, “Now that we’re fighting back, of course they are fighting back, too.”

There’s the Iraq “has become a virtually unrestricted training ground for terrorists” again. Terrorists were training in Iraq long before the U.S. arrived. If you recall, one of the training camps actually housed an airplane fuselage for hijacking practice. The difference now is those terrorists is training are being killed on a daily basis. Before the U.S. arrived, terrorists trained without threat.

“It is also important to note that using a limited number of U.S. forces in Iraq was the brain child of the Bush administration, against the counsel of many senior professional military officials. The prime advocates of keeping a lid on U.S. forces were Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, although many others favored that view or acquiesced in it.”

[RWC] Wow! The editorial author actually conceded “many others favored” the manpower level. Usually we’re led to believe everyone in the military said we needed far more troops. I wonder how this admission got through the editing process. <g>

“What is also becoming increasingly clear is that the whole policy of taking the United States to war in Iraq was poorly conceived, as well as badly executed. If President Bush believed the cherry-picked, carefully chosen intelligence about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction or links to al-Qaida, he was either careless or naive; if he knew the information was false and wanted to go to war anyway for other reasons -- such as assuring his re-election as a war president -- the American people have yet to be told what those reasons were.”

[RWC] Again the PG hopes we have short memories. To date, every investigation has concluded the Bush administration neither pushed the intelligence agencies to predetermined conclusions nor misrepresented the intelligence data presented to it. This paragraph is simply a PG smear attempt.

“The logic of this latest National Intelligence Estimate could be that if the danger to Americans from global terrorism was increased by the war, it would now be decreased by withdrawal from that war. The level of hatred of the United States in the world, recently manifest at the U.N. General Assembly, is considerable.”

[RWC] “Danger to Americans from global terrorism … would now be decreased by withdrawal from that war?” The PG refers to this as “logic?” Here’s what Osama bin Laden said in 1998 after the U.S. ran from Somalia in 1993: “Our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled …”

In his own words and those of other terrorists, bin Laden and his followers were emboldened over the years by both U.S. inaction after attacks and cutting and running.

Here’s what the NIE says about the PG’s logic.

“We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. The Iraq conflict has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.”

Oops. This is what I meant above when I wrote the PG published this editorial one day too soon.

Regarding the “hatred of the United States in the world, recently manifest at the U.N. General Assembly,” who cares? Why should we seek the approval of a group of people reminiscent of the Star Wars bar scene who applaud dictators like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

“Can America work back from that to greater comity with the world and, thus, greater safety in it? We are inclined to think yes. But the Bush administration needs to stop yapping about the necessity of its failed mission in Iraq and start thinking about Americans’ real security. The new National Intelligence Estimate could serve as a useful starting point for such reflection.”

[RWC] What exactly did the “greater comity with the world” prior to 9/11 get us?